Why would someone join the Anglican( Episcopalian Church)?

[Tis_Bearself]

Usually in America the wealthier southern family’s were Episcopalians and the poor ones weren’t.

This was also the case in some of the northern Industrial cities. The pecking order was pretty much Episcopalians at the top of the ladder, Presbyterians the next level down, followed by all the other Protestants and the Catholics kind of at the bottom.

Episcopals were also known for running a number of elite prep schools for boys where the wealthy sent their children.

 

[7_Sorrows]

There were Episcopal day schools where in the city where I lived.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

the only thing that seems to unite Anglicans is that they are emphatically not Roman.

I think you sell your fellow Christians short. The primary thing that unites us is that we are followers of Christ.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

My assessment of Catholics is that they assume non Catholic Christians are thinking about the Roman Catholic Church, positively or negatively, a lot more than they actually do. Mostly they have other stuff on their minds, but do think about us on occasion.

I agree with you, commenter. Most people in my circle think very little of the RCC, except when the Pope does or says something striking. We smile and think how wonderful he is. OR when a church leader says or does something really unfortunate. Then we shake our heads and think ‘Thank God, it’s them and not us.’

 

[commenter]

commenter:

My assessment of Catholics is that they assume non Catholic Christians are thinking about the Roman Catholic Church, positively or negatively, a lot more than they actually do. Mostly they have other stuff on their minds, but do think about us on occasion.

I agree with you, commenter. Most people in my circle think very little of the RCC, except when …

Not sure about your circle, but I believe most other Anglicans think about the RCC Church and Faith a lot, but implicitly. They don’t consciously say “We are moving away from the Magisterium on this issue, better be careful not to go too far”. But they take for granted certain parameters. They assume a template:

• This book is in the New Testament canon, that one is not;
• This ancient scholar is an Early Church Father, that one is a heretic;
• This ancient church practice is consistent with the common Christian Tradition, that other ancient one is not;
• This ancient dogma (Trinity, or others) is consistent with the common Christian Tradition, that other ancient dogma is not.

Apparently they hypothesize some anonymous, organized, authoritative ancient source for all these discretionary decisions that make up the template, they don’t make any inquiries about whether there is any organization today that might show some direct, organizational continuity with that hierarchy.

Apparently that ancient template-making hierarchy disbanded, with no direct organizational successor.

But I would say most do in fact think about the RCC Magisterium a lot, but unconsciously. It is the (to them) anonymous template maker.

 

[jas84173]

I don’t think this is based off of the faith itself.
Episcopalians are the Church of England following the Revolutionary War. Most were English and had a long history in America to be established.
Many Catholics and even Lutherans didn’t really begin coming to America in prominence until the late 19th and eartly 20th century and were like today people who weren’t necessarily wealthy but looking for a better life. Now Catholics make up 22% of the American culture. However it still can be seen that Eposcopals weren’t people seeking a new way of life like many Catholics who came to America.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I didn’t say it was based off the faith. The simple fact is that a lot of the early wealthy settlers in the 13 Colonies were Church of England and came over to the New World seeking economic benefit, because they could get large land grants or establish themselves easily in other businesses such as shipping. For the most part, they also made up “high society” in terms of rich people who socialized and married within their class.

As time went by, other people were drawn to the churches and institutions formed by these early settlers because it was where the “right” people were for business and marriage opportunities. As shown in the case of St. Elizabeth Seton, if you joined the “wrong” church you very quickly became an embarrassment and a social pariah.

This is established historical fact. I’m not sure why some in this thread want to argue the point.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Not sure about your circle, but I believe most other Anglicans think about the RCC Church and Faith a lot, but implicitly. They don’t consciously say “We are moving away from the Magisterium on this issue, better be careful not to go too far”. But they take for granted certain parameters. They assume a template:

This book is in the New Testament canon, that one is not;
This ancient scholar is an Early Church Father, that one is a heretic;
This ancient church practice is consistent with the common Christian Tradition, that other ancient one is not;
This ancient dogma (Trinity, or others) is consistent with the common Christian Tradition, that other ancient dogma is not.

Apparently they hypothesize some anonymous, organized, authoritative ancient source for all these discretionary decisions that make up the template, they don’t make any inquiries about whether there is any organization today that might show some direct, organizational continuity with that hierarchy.

Apparently that ancient template-making hierarchy disbanded, with no direct organizational successor.

But I would say most do in fact think about the RCC Magisterium a lot, but unconsciously. It is the (to them) anonymous template maker.

I’m sorry but this makes no sense to me. Template maker? What in the world are you talking about?